24 Comments

Kelly

I was thrilled by the Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage. Personally–I don’t think the State should be involved in marriage and would love to see marriages left to the churches and the civil contract portions left to the government: Anyone who wants to enter a recognized civil partnership does so in a state ceremony that entitles one to various legal benefits and responsibilities. If you have religious beliefs and want a religious wedding, then go to your church and have one that affirms whatever it is you believe about what you’re doing sacramentally.

Before this decision, my partner and I could have easily found clergy who would “marry” us. That would have changed nothing about our relationship and still left us excluded from the rights and privileges and responsibilities accorded any straight people who wished to marry. So why bother? Now, because we jointly own property and assets, we can protect them–at least at the federal level, by heading to New York or Mass. or CT and going through a ceremony that confers those benefits upon us. Well–then we have to come to home to North Carolina . . . . but at least we have federal protections.

Mary Bellamy

As a Unitarian Universalist and a Humanist I believe all people have equal worth and dignity. Today’s decisions are important steps along the way to treating each other with the respect we all deserve.

Roger Anderson

The Supreme Court is made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. There are no Christians among the 9 justices, although Justices Scalia and Thomas could possibly qualify as “baby” Christians. All 3 female justices are either gay or tri-sexual. 4 of the Justices were born in New York, 2 in New Jersey and 2 in California, only one was born in America. 4 of the Justices are communists, 3 are Conservatives and 2 are classified as liberals now that Justice Roberts has come out of the closet.
AND YOU WONDER WHY THE SUPREME JUST RULED THAT THERE IS NO GOD AND THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD.

This move by Kennedy marks a theory that opposes Federalism, first, and lays out an agenda that is going to further marginalize Americans who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

As Ryan Anderson has emphasized, what institution now exists to advocate for children to have both a mother and a father — a factor that correlates strongly with their future prospects?

How long before the exact arguments justifying SSM now will be used to broaden the definition of “marriage” to include polygamous unions, incesutuous unions, or bestiality? (This isn’t an insult, but a matter of legal argument).

Vague sentiments about “human dignity” and fairness don’t answer the real questions that some of us have about the direction liberals are taking us.

Lauren Markoe

Lauren,
Absolutely! I’m an evangelical, with a Reformed flavor. I’m one of those people who believes in the Bible — inerrancy and the Chicago statement, etc. etc.
I’m under no illusion that DOMA was any sort of last stand for traditional marriage. We ruined marriage long ago. As Jonathan Merritt said earlier, there was some inevitability to this.
I do think it’s important to be clear about what’s happening — that the courts are allowing for states to just change the definition of words, etc.

It’s not a two-step argument from “God created man and woman” and “the two shall become one flesh” to DOMA. But it is a three- or four-step argument. Believing in the Bible doesn’t *automatically* translate into certain public policy position.
It does so after some hard work.

So, it’s time for evangelicals, as Michale McConnell is quoted as saying in a recent ChristianityToday article,
“…if the church believes in what it preaches about marriage, for the church to explain why and particularly to find ways to communicate more effectively to its own young people.”

Lauren Markoe

Wayne

The tens of millions of dollars spent by the Catholic and LDS Churches on this futile attempt to establish a Christian Sharia and undermine the US Constitution in California could have fed hungry kids by the millions. Shame be upon them forever!

Not sure which millions you’re talking about, Wayne. However, Evangelicals, Catholics and other religious traditionalists have done more to feed the hungry and care for the poor than any others … in history (!) Look at the top NGOs in the world: world vision, samaritans purse, etc. The UDHR had origins in the Christian social tradition. PEPFAR saved millions and had the backing of evangelicals, and the abstinence emphasis was a piece of the successful strategy.
It’s not a coincidence. Solutions to poverty and political instability have to be holistic. I think it’s been proven that children who grow up in a stable family are less like to end up in poverty. =) That’s why Christianity is so great!

Lauren Markoe

To those of you who think the Supreme Court got it wrong today, what’s the next step? To those of you who think the Supreme Court got it right today, what’s going to happen next on gay marriage? And thanks for including your religious perspective, or lack of a religious perspective, and your general location.

Georgann

I don’t think much happened today. The justices addressed the matter of rights of those married for federal benefits but did not ban or legalize same sex marriage across the land. It appears that all that was boosted was the morale of gays and the time to be wasted congratulating one another… if you wanted (Clinton’s) DOMA downed.

The bigger question is not fairness but whether or not people can be forced to condone same sex marriage. It appears that’s what gays want. To be approved. But only God can approve a marriage.

So this question will remain unanswered and the states will battle it out until simply exhausted. And nothing will have changed as far as what people really think about it.

Victoria Chance

I hold that the government has never had anyplace in determining the “moral” fabric of the society. This was established and is commonly called “separation of church and state.” I, as a Wiccan, am glad to see us take steps in the direction that allows each consenting adult to take personal responsibility and the ability to direct their own lives. It does sadden me however to see my Christian counterparts keep quoting the Bible and/or using it as a way to justify their feelings. For in the Bible, in the Bible a “traditional” marriage, was one of rape and slavery. The women in those marriages had no rights what so ever and I really fear that is what the current movement is really about. They would like us to live under the same kinds of oppressive laws that are found in Saudi Arabia and other places around the world. We as a people, no matter our religion, should stand up for the rights of human kind and not the control of power that is the current push from the “right.” As a Wiccan, equality is extremely important as is the balance of power.

Chuck

“For in the Bible, in the Bible a “traditional” marriage, was one of rape and slavery. The women in those marriages had no rights what so ever and I really fear that is what the current movement is really about. They would like us to live under the same kinds of oppressive laws that are found in Saudi Arabia and other places around the world.”

Victoria, with all due respect are you serious about this comment? The rape and slavery that you refer to was never condoned by God, his covenant people, nor anyone that I know of today. What you describe was certainly a part of ancient near east cultures (and some today as well) but not what most people today have in mind when they use the term “traditional” marriage. In addition, I know of no Christian…liberal, conservative, and everything in between…who wants Islamic law imposed on women.

I respect your concerns but they seem a bit over the top to me. God’s peace to you.

Carol Reed

We live in strange times.. We have ignored the timeless nature of marriage. We have heterosexual couples living together without marriage, a large percent of babies born to unmarried couples and same sex people insisting on marriage. I really wonder what our world and the US will look like in 100 years.

Lauren Markoe

Thanks for your comment, Carol. Is it coming from a religious perspective, and do you accept or reject the possibility that a gay couple could, in their own union, appreciate the timeless nature of marriage?

J Bernard Taylor

I do not agree with the decision but I can understand it. We in the USA are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. The Bible has had a great influence on our moral values. I do think we are better as a country when marriage is upheld as a union between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution we cannot deny marriage equality for all. My fear is that marriage may be further expanded to include more than two persons and other configurations. I can understand same sex marriage as a Constitutional right, but I cannot see it as a Biblical right. Churches should continue to stand for marriage of a man and a woman. Let the marriage be performed by secular means. I see no justification for same sex marriage according to the Bible..

Maria

I believe that 20 years from now this point will be moot in CHRISTIAN circles other than some fringe sects. As we have moved in the church away from polygamy (which is allowed and in fact, in certain circumstance, promoted in the Bible), towards women in leadership (something warned against and taught to be wrong), we will also move toward gay marriage for gay people of faith.

I don’t believe that there was any frame of reference, culturally, for gay marriage in biblical times and the commentary made against homosexual behaviour did not have anything to do with Christian love and intimacy in a relationship of marriage.

Once we get out from under the current generations who have been raised with the propaganda that homosexuality is and can only be a sin, I believe we will move naturally to the believe that faithful love in a Christian context between two people who love and follow Jesus is a thing to be desired, regardless of orientation.

Alessio Ventura

The act of sodomy, anal sex, whether it be between heterosexual or homosexual couples is an aberration. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court ruling in essence said that gay couples who participate in anal sex are no different than heterosexual couples who copulate for the purposes of reproduction. The reality of anal sex is that one or both partners must empty their bowels before participation, but even in those cases, a fair amount of e-coli, which is bacteria associated with waste, will be transferred from one partner to the next. It is a sickening act, and it is reality. I don’t hate my cousin, a lesbian. On the countrary,mI love her more than anyone I know. All humansare God’s children and I love my fellow man, homosexual or otherwise. It is the abhorrent act that I detest, which is completely unnatural and is disgusting if people were to be honest. Why can’t gay and lesbian couples just accept that they are loved independently of the sexual acts they engage in? My cousin and her partner have just as many health, dental, and vision benefits as I do, if not more.

Chuck

In the sense that the court has established that legally married same sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits as others I agree with the decision.

So we know what the court thinks as a matter of civil rights. The bigger picture however is what God thinks about same sex relations in general. I for one believe that such relations are, according to the Scriptures, contrary to God’s purpose and design – not a good thing. I have honestly tried to be convinced by those within the GLBT Christian community that I am wrong. I have read much of their material and have tried to be as open-minded as possible but I am still not seeing it. So, I will continue to follow my convictions while at the same time do all that I can to practice love, acceptance, and respect for those in the GLBT community. I’m sure that will not be enough for some, but may God give us the grace to have as our ambition to always be pleasing to Him.

Ann

If gay couples now have the same legal privileges as the heterosexually married couples, then what about single people? Arent’ they now being discriminated against? Could I be asexual and have a close friend I wanted to share legal privileges with? Or perhaps 2 unmarried siblings would want to have these same benefits.